You quit fighting a long and pointless war that drains TRILLIONS of dollars out of the nation's coffers. The EAS program costs pennies compared to some of the other money being thrown down the drain. It's like saying I'm going to start saving money by drinking one less cup of coffee per month, but ignore the $400 car payment on my shiny new Beamer.

Maybe the generals don't try to CUT the budget, but they DO try to avoid buying weapons they don't want. Here is the latest example:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the second engine “costly and unnecessary,” adding that “every dollar additional to the budget that we have to put into the F-35 is a dollar taken from something else that the troops may need.” Gates has repeatedly recommended that Obama veto the defense spending bill if it includes the engine funding. Obama himself has said, “think about it: hundreds of millions of dollars for an alternate second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter when one reliable engine will do just fine.”

Yes. Say what you will about the appropriation of federal money towards defense vs. transportation, but the $200 million spent on EAS in the lower 48 is about the same they spend in war in, what, a few hours? Is cutting THAT many jobs to reduce such a small amount of spending going to make a significant enough impact? I feel like I'm being redundant on this point, but it bears repeating.

I don't dispute the point you're making, but I take issue with the analogy. No matter what they spend the money on, the money is staying within the Department of Defense. By all means reduce wasteful interdepartmental spending and use the money for something that the guys on the ground need. But is the government planning on taking the $200 million saved from EAS and reappropriating it to some other budget within the FAA? Are other, more practical causes going to receive a new subsidy? Perhaps I'm wrong but I was under the assumption that they wanted to cut the program to reduce overall spending, not cut the program to give it to some other more worthwhile aviation budget.

And that attitude means we will never get out of debt. By itself that one cup of coffee will not pay for a BMW. But if you are already upside down on a car, why add unnecessary expenses? Would you walk past a five dollar bill on the sidewalk because it wouldn't pay all your debt?

No, but I would realize the sheer futility of it if picking up that $5 bill would eliminate thousands of jobs after I had just spent billions of dollars on various stimulus packages to help preserve and create jobs. I'm not arguing that the country doesn't need to change the way it spends money, I'm saying that while we're arguing over the petty stuff that won't make any difference (the cup of coffee), there is money hemorrhaging out of other places (the car payment). Lets talk about getting rid of the car first, perhaps getting a cheaper one, and THEN worry about the coffee.

But, what if, after a long night of..., you drink that cup of coffee, head into a business meeting, nail your presentation, get a promotion, and then earn enough to not only pay off the BMW, but buy another BMW, as well. Without that cup of coffee to stimulate you, you would have crashed your BMW on the way to the meeting, gotten fired for being late to your presentation, and ended up even more upside down than you were before. If you own a retail business, and it's about ready to tank, do you shut the lights off, so if customers come in, they can't see your merchandise, and end up walking out? Even though store lighting isn't an absolute requirement for selling your merchandise, and costs money to maintain, would it really be a smart idea to shut it off?

Speaking of...what is the DEAL with those coffee machines in hotel rooms?!? The coffee from those things always tastes terrible!

Is this something we can all finally agree on?

I didn't do the math but I think the previous example was way off. A more accurate example might be that I spend $4,400 every month and only make $2,200. In order to cut back I am going to stop buying that 1 cent piece of bubble gum every other Friday. Why can't they just ignore the 1/1000 of .5 percent of of the budget and get to the meat and potatoes? How about they begin a discussion on medicare, medicaid, SS and military spending. EAS and other programs, like PBS, are just being used as pawns in a political rhetoric game. These kinds of cuts are nothing more than distractions that are exacerbating the problem by trying to kick the can down the road and further delaying the inevitable (a real solution that gets more difficult by the day or a debt problem resulting in a depression and currency collapse).

That's because the hotels rinse and wash the coffee pots in the ****ter bowl water.

Let's look at how that $5 bill would eliminate "thousands" of jobs and consider the alternative.

Yes, there is a small percentage of the already small number of people who fly on many EAS route who actually are building businesses and creating jobs. But the VAST majority are just avoiding the 1-2 hour drive to the big city to catch a flight.

If the goberment is helping the economy by paying EAS people to work, why not just pay them to NOT work? The cost would be less (no Jet A or MX cost), and they could still spend their money at Walmart. (kinda like what they did when they extended unemployment... because it was good for the economy. If that is the case, why not unemploy everyone and give them benefits forever?)

I agree ALL areas need to be cut.... including defense (the last place to make cuts IMHO). Unfortunately, I am not the one who makes the decisions.

These cuts are a flag-waver for those who create them.... but AT LEAST THEY ARE SOMETHING. When most folks in government think the answer to a poor economy is increased taxes and throwing money at the problem, I am THANKFUL for every nickle they can be talked out of.